Clearing up confusion over structuring of Research Strategy related to Specific Aims in NIH grant proposals

One of the most common questions I received from Principal Investigators when NIH released the new Research Strategy section guidelines was regarding Specific Aims. Though NIH has gone to great lengths to clarify the allowed structure of Research Strategy with regard to the aims, the question still seems to pop up.

Here is the official answer, right from the NIH Enhancing Peer Review site:

How I should organize the Research Strategy section to address the Significance, Innovation, and Approach for each Specific Aim, assuming I have more than one?

Applicants should use their discretion in organizing the information to best convey the desired information to the reviewers. For example, if an application had two specific aims, an applicant might choose to organize the Research Strategy in one of the following two ways:

Significance: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2 Innovation: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2 Approach: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2

OR:

Specific Aim 1: Significance, Innovation, Approach Specific Aim 2: Significance Innovation, Approach